Thursday, December 9, 2010

I really detest how Washington does "business" these days. From the 2100 page ObamaCare bill-with Speaker Nancy Pilosi's "We have to pass it know what's in it" sentiment, to tucking all sorts of stuff into other, necessary bills-such as funding requests.

So, SB 510 has been tucked into another bill-read the details here:

http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum1061.php

On the right side of the page is a form to fill out-simply fill it out and press submit, and the organization will send an email on your behalf, opposing the measure.

Monday, December 6, 2010

SB 510 (even with the much ballyhooed Tester Amendment) will firmly place American agriculture under the jackboots of the Department of Homeland Security, the Food and Drug Administration, not to mention the monumental juggernaut of the US Dept of Agriculture.

No where does it address the failings of the safeguards currently on the books, by the way. It does not fund more inspectors, training for those inspectors, or even increase the frequency of them. The food processing industry as a whole, is pretty much free to police themselves, within the vast sea of regulations and permitting processes which manages to make about one visit every five years. Note that I stated "food processing", not food production.

Per the directives of the Codex Alimentarius (originating from the UN, and which the United States has adopted), all foods grown in the US will eventually be held to the same standard as the "global community". In theory, this is supposed to help with trade-but, many US products are not allowed into Europe or even China as it is now. The reasons are complex but include the current modern methods of intense agricultural production. Herbicides, pesticides, GMO plants, RoundUp Ready seed, etc, are part of what makes the US one of the "bread baskets" of the entire world.

But SB 510 is not just about trade. It is actually about control of the nation's food supply, disguised as "protecting" it.

The mandates it contains are frightening to anyone who thinking about getting into agriculture, even in a small way. Even my tiny business, which I had hoped to expand, would not be exempt. Never mind the $500,000 in gross sales and 275 mile geographical limits contained within the Tester Amendment. Nope, I get to jump through an incredible variety of regulations. Not only that, the USDA and FDA are handed unlimited powers to create any regulations they chose. They have a year to craft these, then impose them on America's family farms, from tiny niche organic producers to mega farms growing mono cultures. One language change within the bill, gives the Department of Homeland Security (Yes, DHS) the power to confiscate your LAND if they have "reason to believe" an outbreak of some sort has occurred, or that a threat to a food supply exists.

Not proof, mind you, but just a suspicion. Anyone who grows anything that ends up in the commercial food chain is subject to this. That includes U picks, and road stands if you didn't know. So, Pyrah's in the Butte falls under their control. So does Palmer Produce, and many other local farms, both large and small. And, even if they don't realize it yet, nearly every single forage producer is included also. Why? Because their forages do generally end up in our food supply. Hay and grain is grown which is fed to beef cattle which are then butchered which is then sold to the public, that's how.

The devil is in the details in that bill, and you cannot find this information easily. As soon as I relocated the correct link with all annotated pages, I will add it to this entry.

President Obama was rumored to have signed an executive order which basically agrees to global governance of our nation's food supply-from seeds, to the finished product in the store or on your table. While this is not exactly the case, we are handing off our food chain to multinational corporations and Agribiz, which will be enforced not just by the USDA, but the FDA and DHS. Yes, you read correctly-the Division of Homeland Security.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

For this entry, something that is likely completely off your radar-although it should be dead center. But of course it is not, and unless and until the information is made public by the main stream media, you won't hear a peep about this.

Codex Alimentarius. My what a big, weird word to use, isn't it? Here is the Wiki entry on the phrase:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius

Back the American version later on, here is my road to discovery if you care to read:

The US adoption of UN Agenda 21, and Codex, didn't seem like such a big deal at the time. In fact, I had not heard anything about either of those two things, until a good friend (and you know who you are) told me about them in relation to NAIS. Truthfully, I thought my friend was off her rocker, a crackpot, a paranoid extremist who was overly fearful of things that didn't matter to the average US citizen. She urged me to Google and read up on UN Agenda 21, NAIS, and CODEX on my own-and I am thankful that I did. When I realized the scope of NAIS (National Animal Identification System, as proposed by the USDA) I too, become upset and angry over what was an obvious move to inventory and track every single animal in the US. By chipping the animals, registering your property, and complying with the regulations, you ran a very real risk of subjecting your animals to the draconian actions of bureaucrats. Among many other things, the fines for noncompliance were astronomical and could have meant seizure of your records (including computors) and animals in your care. Luckily, this was eventually gutted due to strong opposition from the American cattle industry and a great many small farmers who would have been put out of business by the costs associated with the boondoggle.

When NAIS died, I thought-whew, close one! But my friend assured me that more trouble was coming...and boy was she right.

Presenting: SB 510. It has passed the Senate and now goes to the House to merge with their version, which is HB 2947. Once the differences are worked out it will then be presented to President Obama to sign into law. It is also known as the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Here is a link to the bill itself: http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.510:And here is the text of the bill as it passed out of the Senate, it is a .pdf:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s510es.txt.pdf It does not, however, contain all the language of that particular bill, I am pretty sure you have to get that direct from committee. Or maybe it is available through your Senator or Representative-it's worth finding a complete copy.

While it is true that we in the US have had some serious illnesses that have made the news recently-it is also true that food borne illnesses have been on the decline for decades. Yes, we should have more inspections of processing facilities (that is a no brainer, right?) and on foods entering into the US from other countries. I think we can all agree that those are good goals.

So, thinking about the above, you should be quite surprised to find this little bit of text tucked within this bill:

".....AND IF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PART OF THE S-510 IS FOUND OR IF THE EXEMPTED PRODUCER FAILS TO PRODUCE REQUIRED HACCP REORDS, THEY FACE FORFEITURE AND SEIZURE OF ANY AND ALL PRODUCTS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LAND USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF SAID GOODS......"

Re-read carefully......any violation of ANY part of this bill, subjects you to seizure of your products and equipment as well as the land.

And just what does the FDA think about food supply? Well here is another shocker for you-a quote:

S510 would give FDA significantly more power to regulate food, particularly food in intrastate commerce. For those who think it’s a good idea to give FDA more power, here are the agency’s views on your freedom to obtain the foods of your choice; these are direct quotations from the agency’s response to a lawsuit the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund filed earlier this year challenging the interstate ban on raw milk for human consumption:

* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [A--p. 25]* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [A--p. 26]* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [A--p. 26]* "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [A--p. 27]

Read that one again too, the FDA is saying you have no right to food. Honest, it is. Give it another read and then you will agree, yep, that is what they are on the record as stating. In a court of law, mind you!

There's more trouble with this bill too. And you thought surely this was bad enough, right? Wrong! It's worse than you supposed when you started reading this.

Here's a few points to consider:

The FDA will have great power over the food production of the US. That includes partnering with DHS over any illness outbreak.

This bill gives the FDA to create any regulation it choses and to implement those regulations without oversight, review, or due process. These bureaucrats (not elected officials who can, in theory, be held accountable) can devise any set of regulations for anything, anything at all. Think that one through-what if the DMV was given the power to arbitrarily say: We will not accept red vehicles any longer and anyone who drives a Honda Civic over X miles a month will have their land confiscated. Sounds pretty crazy, doesn't it? But the power that is given to this agency is immense in this bill....and no one seems to think it's risky? At least, not the 70 some Senators who voted in favor of this monstrosity thought it was a fine and dandy idea. That includes our two Senators from Alaska, btw.

Want to know what it cost to get their approval? (Gosh I just love the internet sometimes, haha)

First, the list of Senators who accepted money from those lobbying in favor of the bill (and the amount is about $50 million, btw)

Our two Senators were pretty cheap, weren't they? Begich: $22,300.00 Murkowski: $139,463 It says Murkowski did not vote, but I have read other lists that show that she did, in fact, vote for this. I am not sure what the real story is here, it may have to do with her re-election still not being settled as yet.

Now, defenders will point to the Tester Amendment as the solution to small producers. That amendment says that those folks who make less than $500,000 in sales, and who restrict thier sales to within 275 geographic miles are exempt from this bill. That is not quite true-you just have to read the language to understand that no one is exempt for the time being...here is another snippet:

ii) LIMITATION.— The exemptions or modifications under clause (i) shall not include an exemption from the requirement to register under section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350d), as amended by this Act, if applicable, and shall apply only to small businesses and very small businesses, as defined in the regulation promulgated under section 418(n) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added under 14 subsection (a)).

So, effectively, FDA registration is required for all, regardless of size. Perhaps deemed a minor point, but language is language, and is easy enough to copy and paste, properly.

Now, in my impression, here is the DOUBLE WHAMMY ... in the Amendment, the new "exemptions' DO NOT APPEAR TO TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATELY!:

EFFECTIVE DATES.—

(1) GENERAL RULE.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

2) FLEXIBILITY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1)—

(A) the amendments made by this section shall apply to a small business (as defined in the regulations promulgated under section 418(n) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by this section)) beginning on the date that is 6 months after the effective date of such regulations;

and

(B) the amendments made by this section shall apply to a very small business (as defined in such regulations) beginning on the date that is 18 months after the effective date of such regulations.

Now, if I interpret that language correctly, ALL food suppliers / growers / marketers are subject to the "law" for at least 6 - 18 months ... and thus, well, screwed!!